## Facts

- Jesse Ventura performed for Titan Sports (WWF) first as a wrestler and later as a commentator, initially under oral agreements that did not address royalties for videotapes.
- During the same period, Titan entered licensing deals for merchandise and for commercial videotapes of WWF matches, resulting in numerous tapes featuring Ventura’s performances.
- Ventura hired an agent who repeatedly asked Titan about royalties for taped performances; Titan’s representative stated it was company policy not to pay royalties to commentators unless they were “feature performers.”
- Relying on that representation, Ventura signed a written commentator agreement that expressly waived royalties; the agreement was renegotiated annually, and Titan repeated the same “no royalties” policy.
- Evidence showed Titan paid videotape royalties to various non-featured performers during the period in which Ventura was told such payments were against policy.
- Ventura sued alleging, among other claims, fraud and restitution (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment) for Titan’s exploitation of videotapes incorporating his performances and persona.
- A jury found Titan committed fraud and misappropriated Ventura’s likeness, and found Ventura entitled to compensation; the district court treated quantum meruit as an equitable claim, set aside the jury’s quantum-meruit verdict, and entered its own findings awarding Ventura restitutionary damages for videotape royalties.
- The district court denied pre-filing interest, concluding the damages were not readily ascertainable under Minnesota law.

## Issues

1. Whether Ventura could recover in quantum meruit for videotape royalties despite the existence of oral agreements that did not mention royalties and a later written contract waiving royalties, where the waiver was found to have been induced by fraud.
2. Whether the district court erred in admitting and relying on Ventura’s damages expert in determining the restitution award.
3. Whether Ventura was entitled to pre-filing (prejudgment) interest under Minnesota law.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ventura in all respects.
- The court held quantum meruit was available because the agreements were silent as to videotape royalties and the later royalty waiver was procured by fraud.
- The court upheld the district court’s admission and reliance on Ventura’s damages expert.
- The court affirmed the denial of pre-filing interest because the damages were not readily ascertainable.

## Legal Principles

- Restitution/quantum meruit may be awarded notwithstanding an express contract when the contract does not address the specific benefit for which recovery is sought.
- A contract term waiving compensation may not bar restitutionary relief when the waiver was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation and reliance is shown.
- Benefits supporting unjust enrichment may include value derived from performances and persona-based commercial exploitation (including audiovisual products), permitting restitution measured by the defendant’s unjust gain.
- Expert damages evidence in a bench determination of equitable restitution is admissible where the methodology is sufficiently reliable and tied to relevant sales and revenue data.
- Under Minnesota law, pre-filing interest may be denied when damages are not readily ascertainable prior to judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an equitable quantum-meruit award for videotape royalties where Titan obtained commercial value from Ventura’s recorded performances under agreements that either did not address royalties or included a waiver induced by fraud, and it also affirmed reliance on expert damages testimony and the denial of pre-filing interest due to non-ascertainable damages.


Ventura v. Titan Sports, Inc., 65 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 1995)